Akhya Pandey
On 15 July 2025, a Delhi Court issued a symbolic but impactful punishment to accused individuals who delayed court proceedings by failing to submit their bail bonds on the scheduled date. The case was heard by Judicial Magistrate Saurabh Goyal at Dwarka District Court, and it quickly gained attention for the creative way the court enforced respect for procedure.
The Incident
The accused had been directed to furnish their bail bonds before the court. Despite being called out more than once, they failed to comply until much later in the day. Their delayed appearance was treated as a disruption of the judicial process. Taking serious note of this, the court invoked Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)1860, which deals with intentional insult or interruption to a public servant sitting in a judicial proceeding.
Instead of going the usual route of fines or initiating contempt proceedings, the judge passed a rare order: the accused were directed to stand in the courtroom with their hands raised for the rest of the working day. This public and symbolic act served as both a punishment and a reminder about the seriousness of court orders.
Legal Basis
Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)1860: Punishes intentional insult or interruption to a judge during court proceedings. Penalty includes imprisonment up to six months, or fine up to ₹1,000, or both.
Section 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)1973: Relates to the format and furnishing of bail bonds.
The court also relied on its inherent power to maintain dignity and order, which stems from judicial discretion and past precedent.
The Case of Kuldeep
One of the accused, Kuldeep, had also failed to submit his bail bond and was initially sent to judicial custody for 14 days. However, once his counsel produced the required ₹10,000 surety and bail bond, the court granted him bail. This move reflected the court’s balance between firm discipline and fair opportunity.
No Contempt, But a Message
While the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was not directly invoked, the judge’s order echoed the same underlying principle: maintaining respect for judicial authority. The punishment didn’t involve incarceration or monetary penalty, but instead used public accountability to deliver the message.
Judicial Discretion at Work
Such a non-conventional order isn’t routine, but it is legally valid. Courts in India have, in past rulings, stressed the importance of discipline inside courtrooms. In cases such as Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 SCC 584 and State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, (1998) 1 SCC 1
The Supreme Court emphasised that dignity of the court must be upheld at all costs.
Case Name: Harkesh Jain v. Anil & Others Crl. Case No. 22490/2018
Court: Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class – 01, Dwarka District Court, New Delhi
Presiding Judge: Judicial Magistrate Saurabh Goyal
Case Number: Criminal Case No. 22490/2018
Order Date: 15 July 2025
Instagram: Click Here.
LinkedIn: Click Here.
For Collaboration and Business: Click Here.